How Texas has changed its insanity rule over time

Topic: Examine the history of the Texas insanity rule

The topic of insanity as a defense is particularly apropos considering the recent criminal justice incidents within the media. Over the past few years, America has been marred by tragic shooting deaths and the resulting aftermath for gun regulation. In many of these tragedies, the perpetrator has used the excuse of “insanity” as a means to circumvent or even undermine the criminal justice system. Historically, defendants have used the insanity excuse in both federal and state court as means of sidestepping responsibility for their actions and behaviors. Here, the state of Texas is no exception in allowing these elements with their courtroom. In Texas, the insanity defense is including a broader array of defenses know as “excuse defenses.” The insanity defense is unique in that it is considered a complete defense and must result in a not guilty finding if the insanity ruling is upheld. In most states, the defendant must prove insanity based on the preponderance of the evidence. Other states, such as a Texas, require the defendant to meet a much higher standard of proving insanity using very clear and convincing evidence to confirm their claim. Some states, excluding Texas, actually allow the burden of proof to fall on the prosecution, with the standard here being that they must establish insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. In the state of Texas, legal insanity and medical insanity are heavily differentiated. Legal insanity is based on many, often evolving statutes that are based on common law . In the state of Texas defendants must prove that at the time the crime was committed, the perpetrator was legally insane. In the state of Texas, all defendants must offer substantiated proof of mental disease. This often occurs through the use of various psychologist’s expert witness testimony, and other evidence proving insanity. This his historically been riddled with complication as proving insanity can be very difficult given the prevailing difficulties of the court system. For example, a Jeffrey Dahmer was unable to prove insanity although he was a sexually serial killer, who at young boys after he killed them. Here, Dahmer was diagnosed with personality disorder, personality disorder and psychotic disorder, but was still found sane during his trial. Dahmer, killed 17 young men, ate their body parts, and even conducted sexual acts on the dead bodies. He was still found sane indicating the complexity associated with the insanity rule and its applications in court. Today the insanity defense is used in about 1% of cases and is successful only about a ¼ of the time. However, due to the higher profile nature and heinous crimes by those using the insanity rule, its prevalence seems much higher than what actually occurs within real world situations within America. Often, these leads to a lack of public support for the insanity rule, particularly in Texas, as people view the rule as a means to help criminals circumvent punishment for their crimes. In addition, particularly in Texas, those who are found not guilty through the insanity defense often still pose a danger to society, and in extreme cases roam free within the state of Texas and beyond. As the statistics bear our however, most of the time, particularly within the state of Texas, the insanity rule is seldom used. When it is used however, it is only successful about 25% of the time. Even with these statistics the history of the insanity rule within the state of Texas has undergone significant change and modification over the years (Borum, 1999).

To begin, the history of the insanity rule in Texas is very rich and storied. The state of Texas uses what is called the M’Naghten test. The M’Naghten test is used for those using the insanity defense in the state of Texas. Essentially, the defense states that the perpetrator of the crime does not have the ability to determine right and wrong due a mental defect or disability. This defense, although heavily utilized in Texas has origins back to 1843 under the English common law system. Within the state of Texas, this test is predicated on numerous requirements. These requirements are as follows:

1. The potential criminal must demonstrate that they are suffering from a mental disorder or illness

2. The potential criminal at the time the crime was committed must demonstrate that they where not aware of what they where doing

3. In addition to not being aware of what they where doing, the criminal must also demonstrate that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong

4. Finally, the rational for not knowing what they were doing was wrong must be linked to the mental illness or disease (Perlin, 1996)

Texas has had a very extensively history with the above requirements and has often overturned ruling due to evidence related to them. For example, the case of Andrea Yates is a classic example of the history of the Texas insanity rule and how different juries can use the same facts to come to different conclusions. Here, Yates, mush like Dahmer, had an extensive history of mental illness. Also, like Dahmer, she attempted suicide and was often evaluate by psychologist related to her ability to function properly in society. These psychologists described her as being extremely volatile and psychotic. Others have been on record as describing Yates as one the most troubles souls they had encountered. However, during her trial in Houston Texas in 2002, the world found out that Yates killed her five children by drowning them to death. Here, she felt compelled to do so because she believed an overwhelming evil was upon them. Even with all of this evidence the Texas jury rejected her insanity plea. Here, she met all of the criteria described above, but still did not satisfy the jury. However, in subsequent trials, the court of appeals reversed the decision. By 2006, another trial in the case of Yates determined that the she was noted guild by reason of insanity. Likewise in 2004, Deann Laney was also found guilty due to insanity for killing her three sons with rocks. However, by 2006 a jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. In both cases, these women suffered from mental illness demonstrated by the four thresholds mentioned above.

The above paragraphs indicate the contentious nature of the insanity rule in Texas as it has evolved dramatically over the years. The Texas insanity defense rule is described in section 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code. As noted above this defense borrows heavily from the M’Naghten test mentioned in detail within the paragraphs above. Eventually, the Texas legislature would deviate slightly from this test in 1973. Here, Texas looked to combine the M’Naghten test with the American Law Institutes model penal code framework. As a result, in addition to the circumstances presented above, the law then added an inquiry as to whether the potential criminal was actually capable of adhering to the stated laws and statues. Thus the “ALI test” was born and utilized throughout the state of Texas (Silver, 1994).

Unfortunately, this insanity was further changes just 10 years later in 1983. Here, the nation and the world were outraged the John Hinckley attempted to assassinate president Ronald Reagan and used the insanity defense to attempt to circumvent the legal system. Here, Hinckley was charge was over ten counts of assassination. Hinckley, was eventually acquitted of all charges by reason of insanity. Here, there was overwhelming evidence that he committed the crime. However, experts where able to testify that Hinckley as unable to differentiate between reality and fiction due to schizophrenia. Though the trial, lawyers where able to illustrate that Hinckley suffered from a deteriorated mental state. This occurred much in the same manner as the other Texas trials discussed above as Yates and Laney killed their children using similar defenses. As a result, the state of Texas looked to change the scope of the law to narrow the use of insanity (Slobogin, 1985).

In 2004, Texas governor Greg Abbot revised the manner in which those who are proven not guilty by reason of insanity are allowed to matriculate back into society. Here the release standards where tightened in an effort to further protect the public from harms. In addition, all individuals proven not guilty where subject to out-patient supervision. Here, all individuals where required to be monitored in an effort to help lower recidivism. As a result, an entire tracking process was conducted to help better protect the public for other violent acts from these criminals.